433 

.PJ32 


REMOVAL  OF  JUDGE    DOUGLAS   BY  THE  SENATE   AS  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON  TERRITORIES,  i*\*t*& 

__. ____'.      s       ,    ;. 

^~t^^W«.(f\      H<rrto\4- 

LETTER  OF  JUDGE  DOUGLAS 

»K  <.. 

IN  REPLY  TO    THE 

SPEECH  OF  DR.  GWIN  AT  GRASS  VALLEY,  CAL. 


REPRINT   FROM  THE   DAILf  NATIONAL,    SAN   FRANCISCO,    SEPT.    16,    1859. 


To  the  Editors  of  the  "National"  San  Francisco,  California: 

I  am  indebted  to  the  kindness  of  an  unknown  friend  for  a  copy  of  the 
National  of  the  16th  July,  containing  a  speech  of  the  Hon.  William  M.  Gwin 
at  Grass  Valley,  with  black  lines  drawn  around  certain  passages,  for  the 
purpose,  I  presume,  of  directing  my  attention  especially  to  them.  Inasmuch 
as  your  paper  is  the  medium  through  which  the  assault  on  the  political 
position  which  I  have  maintained  in  the  Senate,  and  before  the  people  of 
Illinois,  was  conveyed  to  the  public,  justice  requires  that  you  should  publish 
such  reply  as  my  friends  in  California  have  a  right,  under  the  circumstances, 
to  expect.  Hence  I  address  this  letter  to  you. 

After  the  defeat  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution  in  Congress,  and  the 
rejection  by  Kansas  of  the  propositions  contained  in  the  "English  Bill,"  all 
who  felt  a  deeper  interest  in  the  peace  and  repose  of  the  country  than  in 
the  advancement  of  particular  individuals,  entertained  the  hope  that  the 
strife  had  ended,  and  that  instead  of  new  and  odious  tests  of  political  fidelity 
to  distract  and  divide,  we  should  witness  mutual  desires  and  mutual  exer 
tions  to  present  a  united  Democracy.  If  this  just  expectation  has  been 
disappointed,  and  the  Democratic  party,  burdened  with  new  tests,  and  de 
moralized  by  selfish  rivalries  and  dissensions,  have  been  defeated  in  States 
where  they  should  and  otherwise  might  have  been  successful,  the  responsi 
bility  must  rest  upon  those  who  produced  the  unfortunate  results.  I  shall 
not  follow  the  example  of  these  disturbers  of  Democratic -harmony  by 
reviving  past  issues,  and  indulging  in  criminations  and  recriminations;  nor 
shall  I  stop  to  defend  my  action  on  the  Lecompton  question  from  their 
assaults.  I  am  entirely  content  to  rest  rny  vindication  on  the  verdict  which 
the  people  of  Illinois  have  already  recorded,  and  trust  to  that  enlightened 
public  opinion  of  the  whole  country,  which  will,  sooner  or  later,  declare  with 
emphasis  and  power  that  no  constitution  or  institution  should  ever  be  forced 
upon  a  reluctant  people,  whether  State  or  Territory. 

Passing  from  his  review  of  the  Lecompton  issue,  Mr.  Gwin  said  in  his 
speech  at  Grass  Valley: 

"Near  the  close  of  the  last  session  of  Congress  a  debate  was  sprung  upon  the  Senate 
upon  the  question  of  Territorial  sovereignty.  We  had  long  expected  such  a  discussion, 
because  it  was  the  duty  of  Mr.  Douglas  to  give  his  reasons  to  the  Senate  and  to  the  country 
for  the  line  of  policy  he  had  considered  it  his  duty  to  adopt  in  the  Senatorial  canvass  in 
Illinois.  The  doctrines  he  had  avowed  in  his  Freeport  speech  had  been  condemned  in  the 
Senate  by  his  removal  from  the  Chairmanship  of  the  Territorial  Committee  of  that  body, 
and  it  was  expected  that  he  would  defend  the  position  he  had  taken,  ai)d  give  ample  time 
to  those  who  differed  from  him  to  give  the  reasons  that  had  influenced  them  in  removing 
him  from  that  important  position  at  the  head  of  the  Territorial  Committee  he  had  filled 
for  so  many  years  in  the  Senate.  But  for  reasons  satisfactory  to  himself,  he  did  not 
address  the  Senate  until  near  the  close  of  the  session,  when  there  was  no  time  to  give  the 
subject  that  full  consideration  it  deserved.  He  had  asserted  in  his  Freeport  speech  that  a 
Territorial  Legislature  could  lawfully  by  non-action  or  hostile  legislation  exclude  slavery 
from  such  Territory.  Having  always  opposed  this  doctrine,  I  briefly  announced  my  pre 
vious  opinions,  and  declared  that  if  such  construction  had  been  given  to  the  Kansas-Ne- 

63> 


'brasKa'acft  when  it  was  under  consideration  in  Congress  in  1854,  I  should  have  voted 
against  it." 

Why  was  it  "  the  duty  of  Mr.  Douglas  to  give  his  reasons  to  the  Senate 
and  to  the  country  for  the  line  of  policy  he  had  considered  it  his  duty  to 
adopt  in  the  Senatorial  canvass  in  Illinois  ?"  I  had  already  given  my 
"  reasons  "  at  Freeport,  and  at  more  than  a  hundred  places  during  the  can 
vass,  and  had  been  triumphantly  sustained  by  the  voice  of  the  people  and  the 
vote  of  the  Legislature  against  the  combined  forces  of  the  Black  Republicans 
and  Federal  office-holders  and  their  allies  and  supporters  in  and  out  of  the 
Senate.  Why,  I  repeat,  was  it  my  duty  to  give  my  reasons  to  the  Senate  ? 
The  Senate  is  not  my  constituency.  I  am  not  responsible  to  the  Senate,  nor 
did  any  Senator  venture  to  demand  reasons  for  the  line  of,  policy  which  I 
had  felt  it  my  duty  to  pursue  at  home  in  a  State  canvass. 

But  if  it  were  my  duty,  as  Mr.  Gwin  states,  to  give  my  "  reasons  to  the 
Senate"  for  the  course  which  I  pursued  in  the  canvass,  it  necessarily  follows 
that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Senate  to  hear  them  before  they  proceeded,  as  he 
alleges,  to  condemn  me  by  my  removal,  during  my  absence,  from  the  Chair 
manship  of  the  Committee  on  Territories  which  I  had  held  for  eleven  years, 
and  to  which  I  was  re-elected  after  my  speech  against  the  Lecompton  Con 
stitution. 

The  country  is  now  informed  for  the  first  time  that  I  was  removed  from 
the  post  of  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories  because  of  the  senti 
ments  contained  in  my  "  Freeport  speech."  To  use  the  language  of  Mr. 

Gwin,  THE  DOCTRINES  HE  HAD  AVOWED  IN  HIS  FREEPORT  SPEECH  HAD  BEEN  CON 
DEMNED  IN  THE  SENATE  BY  HIS  REMOVAL  FROM  THE  CHAIRMANSHIP  OF  THE  TERRITO 
RIAL  COMMITTEE  OF  THAT  BODY.  The  country  will  bear  in  mind  this  testimony, 
that  I  was  not  removed  because  of  any  personal  unkindness  or  hostility; 
nor  in  consequence  of  my  course  on  the  Lecompton  question,  or  in  respect 
to  the  Administration;  but  that  it  was  intended  as  a  condemnation  of  the 
doctrines  avowed  in  my  "Freeport  speech."  The  only  position  taken  in  my 
"Freeport  speech,"  which  I  have  ever  seen  cruised  or  controverted,  may  be 
stated  in  a  single  sentence,  and  was  in  reply  to  an  interrogatory  propounded 
by  my  competitor  for  the  Senate:  That  "  the  Territorial  Legislature  could 
lawfully  exclude  slavery,  either  by  non-action  or  unfriendly  legislation." 
This  opinion  was  not  expressed  by  me  at  Freeport  for  the  first  time.  I  have 
expressed  the  same  opinion  often  in  the  Senate,  freely  and  frequently,  in  the 
presence  of  those  Senators  who,  as  Mr.  Gwin  testifies,  removed  me  "  from 
the  Chairmanship  of  the  Committee  on  Territories,"  ten  years  after  they 
knew  that  I  held  the  opinion,  and  would  never  surrender  it. 

I  could  fill  many  columns  of  the  NATIONAL  with  extracts  of  speeches  made 
by  me  during  the  discussion  of  the  compromise  measures  in  1850,  and  in 
defence  of  the  principles  imbodied  in  those  measures  in  1851  and  1852,  in 
the  discussion  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  in  1854,  and  of  the  Kansas  diffi 
culties,  and  the  Topeka  revolutionary  movements  in  1856,  in  all  of  which  I 
expressed  the  same  opinion  and  defended  the  same  position  which  was  as 
sumed  in  the  "  Freeport  speech."  I  will  not,  however,  burden  your  columns 
or  weary  your  readers  with  extracts  of  all  these  speeches,  but  will  refer  you 
to  each  volume  of  the  Congressional  Globe  for  the  last  ten  years,  where  you 
will  find  them  fully  reported.  If  you  cannot  conveniently  procure  the  Con 
gressional  Globe,  I  refer  jou  to  an  editorial  article  in  the  Washington  Union 
of  October  5,  1858,  which,  it  was  reported,  received  the  sanction  of  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States  previously  to  its  publication,  a  few  weeks  after  my 
"  Freeport  speech"  had  been  delivered.  The  Union  made  copious  extracts 
of  my  speeches  in  1850  and  1854,  to  prove  that  at  each  of  those  periods  I 
held  the  same  opinions  which  I  expressed  at  Freeport  in  1858,  and,  conse 
quently,  declared  that  I  never  was  a  good  Democrat,  much  less  sound  on 
the  slavery  question  when  I  advocated  the  compromise  measures  of  1850, 
and  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  in  1854. 


In  the  article  referred  to,  the  Washington  Union  said  : 

"We  propose  to  show  that  Judge  Douglas' action  in  1850  and  1854  was  taken  with 
jspecial  reference  to  the  announcement  of  doctrine  and  programme  which  was  made  at 
?reeport.  The  declaration  at  Freeport  was,  that  '  in  his  opinion  the  people  can,  by  lawful 
weans,  exclude  slavery  from  a  Territory  before  it  comes  in  as  a  State  ;'  and  he  declared  that 
ris  competitor  had  'heard  him  argue  the  Nebraska  bill  on  that  principle  all  over  Illinois  in  1854, 
1855,  and  1856,  and  had  no  excuse  to  pretend  to  have  any  doubt  on  that  subject  '  " 

The  Union  summed  up  the  evidence  furnished  by  my  speeches  in  the  Sen 
ate  .in  1850  and  1854,  that  the  "Freeport  speech"  was  consistent  with  my 
Dormer  course,  with  this  emphatic  declaration: 

"THUS  WE  HAVE  SHOWN  THAT  PRECISELY  THE  POSITION  ASSUMED  BY  JUDGE  DOUGLAS  AT  FREE- 
PORT  HAD  BEEN  MAINTAINED  BY  HIM  IN  1850,  IN  THE  DEBATES  AND  VOTES  ON  THE  UTAH  AND  NEW 
MEXICAN  BILLS,  AND  IN  1854  ON  THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  BILL;  AND  HAVE  SHOWN  THAT  IT  WAS 
OWING  TO  HIS  OPPOSITION  THAT  CLAUSES  DEPRIVING  TERRITORIAL  LEGISLATURES  OF  THE  POWER 

OF   EXCLUDING    SLAVERY    FROM    THEIR    JURISDICTIONS    WERE    NOT    EXPRESSLY    INSERTED    IN    THOSE 
MEASURES." 


liberty,  and  property — of  morals  and  education — to  determine  the  relation  of  husband  and 
wife,  of  parent  and  child — I  am  not  aware  that  it  requires  any  higher  degree  of  civilization  to  regu 
late  the  affairs  of  master  and  servant.  These  things  are  all  confided  by  the  Constitution  to  each  State  to 
decide  for  itself,  and  I  know  of  no  reason  why  the  sa:ne  principle  should  not  be  extended  to  the  Territories." 

This  speech  was  laid  on  the  desk  of  every  member  of  the  Senate,  at  the 
opening  of  the  2d  session  of  the  31st  Congress,  in  December,  1850,  when, 
with  a  full  knowledge  of  my  opinions  on  the  territorial  question,  I  was 
unanimously  nominated  in  the  Democratic  caucus  and  re-elected  by  the  Sen 
ate  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories.  From  that  time  to  this  I 
have  spoken  the  same  sentiments  and  vindicated  the  same  positions  in  debate 
in  the  Senate,  and  have  been  re-elected  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Ter 
ritories  at  each  session  of  Congress,  until  last  December,  by  the  unanimous 
voice  of  the  Democratic  party  in  caucus  and  in  the  Senate,  with  my  opinions 
on  this  territorial  question  well  known  to  and  well  understood  by  every  Senator. 
Yet  Mr.  Gwin  testifies  that  I  was  condemned  and  deposed  by  the  Senate  for 
the  utterance  of  opinions  in  1858,  which  were  put  on  record  year  after  year 
so  plainly  and  so  unequivocally  as  to  leave  neither  the  Senate  nor  the  coun 
try  in  doubt.  Thus  does  Mr.  Gwin,  in  his  eagerness  to  be  my  public  accuser, 
speak  his  own  condemnation,  for  he  voted  for  me  session  after  session, 
with  my  opinions,  the  same  that  I  spoke  at  Freeport,  staring  him  in  the  face. 

On  the  4th  of  January,  1854, 1  reported  the  Nebraska  Bill,  and,  as  Chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  accompanied  it  with  a  special  report,  in  which 
I  stated  distinctly  "that  all  questions  pertaining  to  slavery  in  the  Territories, 
and  in  the  new  /Stales  to  be  formed  therefrom,  are  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the 
people  residing  therein,  by  their  appropriate  representatives  to  be  chosen  by  them 
for  that  purpose."  And  that  the  bill  proposed  "to  carry  these  propositions 
and  principles  into  practical  operation  in  the  precise  language  of  the  Com 
promise  Measures  of  1850."  The  Kansas-Nebraska  act,  as  it  stands  on  the 
statute  book,  does  define  the  power  of  the  Territorial  Legislature  "in  the 
precise  language  of  the  Compromise  Measures  of  1850."  It  gives  the  Legis 
lature  power  over  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation  not  inconsistent  with 
the  Constitution,  without  excepting  African  slavery.  During  the  discussion 
of  the  measure  it  was  suggested  that  it  was  necessary  to  repeal  the  8th 
section  of  the  Act  of  the  6th  of  March,  1850,  called  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
in  order  to  permit  the  people  to  control  the  slavery  question  while  they 
remained  in  a  territorial  condition,  and  before  they  became  a  State  of  the  Union. 
That  was  the  object  and  only  purpose  for  which  the  Missouri  Compromise 
was  repealed. 

On  the  night  of  the  3d  of  March,  1854,  in  my  closing  speech  on  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Bill,  a  few  hours  before  it  passed  the  Senate,  I  said:  "Ii  is  ONLY 

FOR  THE  PURPOSE  OF  CARRYING  OUT  THIS  GREAT  FUNDAMENTAL  PRINCIPLE  OF  SELF- 
GOVERNMENT  THAT  THE  BlLL  RENDERS  THE  8TH  SECTION  OF  THE  MISSOURI  ACT  INOPE 
RATIVE  AND  VOID."  The  article  of  the  Washington  Union  of  October  5,  1858, 
to  which  I  have  referred,  quotes  this  and  other  passages  of  my  speech  on 
that  occasion,  to  prove  that  the  author  of  the  Nebraska  Bill  framed  it  with 
express  reference  to  conferring  on  the  Territorial  Legislature  power  to  con 
trol  the  slavery  question.  And  further,  that  I  boldly  avowed  the  purpose  at 
the  time  in  the  presence  of  all  the  friends  of  the  Bill,  and  urged  its  passage 
upon  that  ground.  I  have  never  understood  that  Mr.  Gwin,  or  any  other 
Senator  who  heard  that  speech  and  voted  for  the  Bill  the  same  night,  ex 
pressed  any  dissent  or  disapprobation  of  the  doctrines  it  announced.  That 
was  the  time  for  dissent  and  disapprobation;  that  was  the  time  to  condemn, 
if  there  were  cause  to  condemn,  and  not  four  or  five  years  later.  The  record 
furnishes  no  such  evidence  of  dissent  or  disapprobation;  nor  does  the  history 
of  those  times  show  that  the  Democratic  Party,  in  the  North  or  in  the  South, 
or  in  any  portion  of  the  country,  repudiated  the  fundamental  principle  upon 
which  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  is  founded,  and  proscribed  its  advocates  arid 
defenders. 


If  Mr.  Gwin  did  not  understand  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  when  it  was  under 
consideration,  according-  to  its  plain  meaning  as  explained  and  defended  by 
its  authors  and  supporters,  it  is  not  the  fault  of  those  who  did  understand  it 
precisely  as  I  interpreted  it  at  Freeport,  and  as  the  country  understood  it  in 
the  Presidential  canvass  of  1856.  Mr.  Buchanan,  and  leading  members  of 
his  Cabinet,  at  all  events,  understood  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  in  the  same 
sense  in  which  it  was  understood  and  defended  at  the  time  of  its  passage. 
Mr.  Buchanan,  jn  his  letter  accepting  the  Cincinnati  nomination,  affirmed  that 
"this  legislation  is  founded  upon  principles  as  ancient  as  free  government 
itself,  and,  in  accordance  with  them,  has  simply  declared  that  the  people  of  a 
Territory,  LIKE  THOSE  OF  A  STATE,  shall  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall 
or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits."  General  Cass,  now  Secretary  of  State, 
has  always  maintained,  from  the  day  he  penned  the  "Nicholson  Letter"  to 
this,  that  the  people  of  the  Territories  have  a  right  to  decide  the  slavery 
question  for  themselves  whenever  they  please.  In  1856,  on  the  2d  day  of 
July,  referring  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  he  said:  "/  believe  the  original 
act  gave  the  Territorial  Legislature  of  Kansas  FULL  POWER  to  exclude  or  allow 
slavery."  Mr.  Toucey,  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  interpreted  that  act  in  the 
same  way,  and,  on  the  same  occasion  in  the  Senate,  said: 

"  The  original  act  recognizes  in  the  Territoiial  Legislature  all  the  power  which  they  can 
have,  subject  to  the  Constitution,  and  subject  to  the  organic  law  of  the  Territory." 

Mr.  Cobb,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  a  speech  at  West  Chester* 
Pennsylvania,  on  the  19th  of  September,  1856,  advocating  Mr.  Buchanan's 
election  to  the  Presidency,  said: 

"  The  Government  of  the  United  States  should  not  force  the  institution  of  slavery  upon 
the  people  either  of  the  Territories  or  of  the  States,  against  the  will  of  the  people,  though 
my  voice  could  bring  about  that  result.  I  stand  upon  the  principle — the  people  of  my 
State  decide  it  for  themselves,  you  for  yourselves,  the  people  of  Kansas  for  themselves. 
That  is  the  Constitution,  and  I  stand  by  the  Constitution  "  And  again,  in  the  same  speech, 
he  said:  "Whether  they"  (the  people  of  a  Territory)  "decide  it  by  prohibiting  it,  according  to 
the  one  doctrine,  OR  BY  REFUSING  TO  PASS  LAWS  TO  PROTECT  IT,  as  contended  for  by  the  other 
party,  is  immaterial.  The  majority  of  the  people,  BY  THE  ACTION  OF  THE  TERRITORIAL  LEGISLATURE, 
will  decide  the  question ;  and  all  must  abide  the  decision  when  made." 

Here  we  find  the  doctrines  of  the  Freeport  speech,  including  "  non-action" 
and  "  unfriendly  legislation"  as  a  lawful  and  proper  mode  for  the  exclusion 
of  slavery  from  a  Territory  clearly  defined  by  Mr.  Cobb,  and  the  election  of 
Mr.  Buchanan  advocated  on  those  identical  doctrines.  Mr.  Cobb  made  simi 
lar  speeches  during  the  Presidential  canvass  in  other  sections  of  Pennsylvania, 
in  Maine,  Indiana,  and  most  of  the  Northern  States,  and  was  appointed 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  by  Mr.  Buchanan  as  a  mark  of  gratitude  for  the 
efficient  services  which  had  been  thus  rendered.  Will  any  Senator  who 
voted  to  remove  me  from  the  chairmanship  of  the  Territorial  Committee  for 
expressing  opinions  for  which  Mr.  Cobb,  Mr.  Toucey,  and  Gen.  Cass  were 
rewarded,  pretend  that  he  did  not  know  that  they  or  either  of  them  had  ever 
uttered  such  opinions  when  their  nominations  were  before  the  Senate  ?  I 
am  sure  that  no  Senator  will  make  so  humiliating  a  confession.  Why,  then, 
were  those  distinguished  gentlemen  appointed  by  the  President  and  confirmed 
by  the  Senate  as  Cabinet  Ministers  if  they  were  not  good  Democrats — sound 
on  the  slavery  question,  and  faithful  exponents  of  the  principles  and  creed 
of  the  party  ?  Is  it  not  a  significant  fact  that  the  President  and  the  most 
distinguished  and  honored  of  his  Cabinet  should  have  been  solemnly  and 
irrevocably  pledged  to  this  monstrous  heresy  of  "  popular  sovereignty,"  for 
asserting  which  the  Senate,  by  Mr.  Gwin's  frank  avowal,  condemned  me  to 
the  extent  of  their  power  ? 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  the  President  and  members  of 
the  Cabinet  are  not  the  only  persons  high  in  authority  who  are  committed 
to  the  principle  of  self-government  in  the  Territories.  The  Hon.  John  C. 
Breckinridge,  the  Vice  President  of  the  United  States,  was  a  member  of  the 


6 

House  of  Representatives  when  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  passed,  and  in  a 
speech  delivered  March  23,  1854,  said: 

"  Among  the  many  misrepresentations  sent  to  the  country  by  some  of  the  enemies  of  this 
bill,  perhaps  none  is  more  flagrant  than  the  charge  that  it  proposes  to  legislate  slavery  into 
Kansas-  and  Nebraska.  Sir,  if  the  bill  contained  such  a  feature  it  would  not  receive  my 
vote.  The  right  to  establish  involves  the  correlative  right  to  prohibit,  and  denying  both 
I  would  vote  for  neither."  »  »  «  o  .*  «  9  o  o  o  o  o  o  o 

"  The  effect  of  the  repeal,  (of  the  Missouri  compromise.)  therefore,  is  neither  to  establish 
nor  to  exclude,  but  to  leave  the  future  condition  of  the  Territories  dependent  wholly  upon  the  action  of 
the  inhabitants,  subject  only  to  such  limitations  as  the  Federal  Constitution  may  impose."  » 
0  *  *  "  It  will  be  observed  that  the  right  of  the  people  to  regulate  in  their  own  way  ALL 
THEIR  DOMESTIC  INSTITUTIONS  is  left  wholly  untouched,  except  that  whatever  is  clone  must  be 
done  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution — the  supreme  law  for  us  all." 

Again,  at  Lexington,  Kentucky,  on  the  9th  of  June,  1856,  in  response  to  the  congratu 
lations  of  his  neighbors  on  his  nomination  for  the  Vice  Presidency,  Mr.  Breckinridge  said: 

"The  whole  power  of  the  Democratic  organization  is  pledged  to  the  following  proposi 
tions:  That  Congress  shall  not  interpose  upon  this  subject  (slavery)  in  the  States,  in  the 
Territories,  or  in  the  District  of  Columbia ;  that  the  people  of  each  Territory  shall  determine  the 
question  for  themselves,  and  be  admitted  into  the  Union  upon  a  footing  of  perfect  equality  with 
the  original  States,  without  discrimination  on  account  of  the  allowance  or  prohibition  of 
slavery. ' ' 

Touching  the  power  of  the  Territorial  Legislature  over  the  subject  of  slavery,  the  Hon. 
James  L.  Orr,  late  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  on  the  llth  of  December, 
1856,  said: 

"  Now,  the  legislative  authority  of  a  Territory  is  invested  with  a  discretion  to  vote  for  or  against  the 
laws.  We  think  they  ought  to  pass  laws  in  every  Territory,  when  the  Territory  is  open  to  settlement  and 
slaveholders  go  there,  to  protect  slave  property.  But  if  they  decline  to  pass  such  law,  what  is  the  remedy  ? 
None,  sir,  if  the  majority  of  the  people  are  opposed  to  the  institution;  and  if  they  do  not  desire  it  in 
grafted  upon  their  Territory,  alt  they  have  to  do  is  simply  to  decline  to  pass  laws  in  the  Territorial  Legis 
lature  for  its  protection,  and  then  it  is  as  well  excluded  as  if  the  power  was  invested  in  the  Territorial  Legis 
lature  to  prohibit  it. ' ' 

Mr.  Stephens,  of  Georgia,  in  a  speech  in  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  17th  of 
February,  1854,  said : 

' '  The  whole  question  of  slavery  was  to  be  left  to  the  people  of  the  Territories,  whether  north  or  south 
of  36°  30',  or  any  other  line  »  *  * 

' '  It  was  based  upon  the  truly  republican  and  national  policy  of  taking  this  disturbing  element  out  of 
Congress  and  leaving  the  whole  question  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  to  the  people  there  to  settle  it  for 
themselves.  And  it  is  in  vindication  of  that  new  principle — then  established  for  the  first  time  in  the 
history  of  our  government — in  the  year  1850,  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth,  contury,  that  we,  the  friends  of 
the  Nebraska  bill,  whether  from  the  North  or  South,  now  call  upon  this  House  and  the  country  to  carry  out 
in  good  faitfy,  and  give  effect  to  the  spirit  and  intent  of  those  important  measures  of  territorial  legislation.'' 

Again,  on  the  17th  of  January,  1856,  he  said  :  » 

"  /  am  willing  that  the  Territorial  Legislature  may  act  upon  the  subject  when  and  how  they  may  think 
proper." 

Mr.  Benjamin,  of  Louisiana,  in  a  speech  in  the  Senate  on  the  25th  of  May,  1854,  on  the 
Nebraska  bill,  said : 

"  We  find,  then,  that  this  principle  of  the  independence  and  self-government  of  thf  people  in  the  distant 
Territories  of  the  confederacy  harmonizes  all  these  conflicting  opinions,  and  enables  us  to  banish  from  the 
halls  of  Congress  another  fertile  source  of  discontent  and  excitement. ' ' 

On  February  15,  1854,  Mr.  Badger,  of  North  Carolina,  said  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill : 

'"It  submits  the  whole  authority  to  the  Territory  to  determine  for  itself.     That,  in  my  judgement,  is 

the  place  where  it  ought  to  be  put.     If  the  people  of  the  Territories  choose  to  exclude  slavery,  so  far  from 

considering  it  as  a  wrong  done  to  me  or  to  my  constituents,  I  shall  not  complain  of  it.    It  is  their  business. ' ' 

Again,  on  March  2,  1854,  one  day  before  the  passage  of  the  bill  through  the  Senate, 
Mr.  Badger  said  : 

iiBut  with  regard  to  that  question  we  have  agreed — some  of  us  because  ice  thought  it  the  only  right 
mode,  and  some  because  we  think  it  a  right  mode,  and  under  existing  circumstances  the  preferable  mode — 
to  confer  this  power  upon  the  people  of  the  Territories. ' ' 

On  the  same  day  Mr  Butler,  of  South.,Carolina,  said  : 

"Now,  I  believe  that  under  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  and  of  the  Utah  and  New  Mexico  bills,  there 
wiU  be  a  perfect  carte  blanche  given  to  the  Territorial  Legislature  to  legislate  as  they  may  think  proper. ' ' 
&  &  *  <*  "  /  am  willing  to  trust  them.  I  have  been  willing  to  trust  them  in  Utah  and 


New  Mexico,  where  the  Mexican  law  prevailed,  and  1  am  willing  to  trust  them  in  Nebraska  and  Kansas, 
where  the  French  law,  according  to  the  idea  of  the  gentleman,  may  possibly  be  revived." 

Iii  the  House  of  Representatives,  June  25,  1856,  Mr.  Samuel  A.  Smith,  of 
Tennessee,  said: 

"For  twenty  years  this  question  had  agitated  Congress  and  the  country  without  a  single 
beneficial  result.  They  resolved  that  it  should  be  transferred  from  these  halls,  that  all  unconstitu 
tional  restrictions  should  be  removed,  and  that  the  people  should  determine  for  themselves  the  character  of 
their  local  and  domestic  institutions  under  which  they  were  to  live,  with  precisely  the  same  rights,  but  no 
greater  than  those  which  were  enjoyed  by  the  old  thirteen  States."  And  further:  "la  1854,  the 
same  question  was  presented,  when  the  necessity  arose  for  the  organization  of  the  Terri 
tories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  and  the  identical  principle  was  applied  for  its  solution." 

In  the  Senate,  on  the  25th  of  February,  1854,  Mr.  Dodge,  of  Iowa,  (now 
Democratic  candidate  for  governor  of  that  State,)  said:  "Arid,  sir,  honesty 
and  consistency  with  our  course  in  1850  demand  that  those  of  us  who  sup 
ported  the  Compromise  measures  should  zealously  support  this  bill,  because 
it  is  a  return  to  the  sound  principle  of  leaving  to  the  people  of  the  Territories  the 
right  of  determining  for  themselves  their  domestic  institutions. 

And  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  December  28,  1855,  Mr.  George 
W.  Jones,  of  Tennessee,  said: 

"  Then,  sir,  you  may  call  it  by  what  name  you  please — non-intervention,  squatter  sovereignty,  or 
popular  sovereignty.  It  is,  sir,  the  power  of  the  people  to  govern  themselves,  and  they,  and  they  alone, 
should  exercise  it,  in  my  opinion,  as  well  while  in  a  territorial  condition  as  in  the  position  of  a  State" 

And  again,  in  the  same  speech,  he  said: 

' '  /  believe  that  the  great  principle — the  right  of  the  people  in  the  Territories,  as  well  as  in  the  Slates, 
to  form  and  regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way — is  clearly  and  unequivocally 
imbodied  in  the  Kansas- Nebraska  act,  and  if  it  is  not,  it  should  have  been.  Believing  that  it  was  the 
living,  vital  principle  of  the  act,  1  voted  for  it.  These  are  my  views,  honestly  entertained,  and  will  be 
defended." 

I  could  fill  your  columns  with  extracts  of  speeches  of  Senators  and  Repre 
sentatives  from  the  North  and  the  South  who  voted  for  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill  and  supported  Mr.  Buchanan  for  the  Presidency  on  that  distinct  issue; 
thus  showing  conclusively  that  it  was  the  general  understanding  at  the  time 
that  the  people  of  the  Territories,  while  they  remained  in  a  territorial  con 
dition,  were  left  perfectly  free,  under  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act,  to  form  and 
regulate  all  their  domestic  institutions,  slavery  not  excepted,  in  their  own 
way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  This  is  the 
doctrine  of  which  Mr.  Gwin  spoke  when  he  said: 

"  To  contend  for  the  power — and  a  sovereign  power  it  is — of  a  Territorial  Legislature  to 
exclude  by  non-action  or  hostile  legislation  is  pregnant  with  the  mischiefe  of  never-ending 
agitation,  of  civil  discord,  and  bloody  wars. 

oo^«^s>o««c« 

'•  It  is  an  absurd,  monstrous,  and  dangerous  theory,  which  demands  denunciation  from 
every  patriot  in  the  land  ;  and  a  profound  sense  of  my  duty  to  you  would  not  permit  me 
to  do  less  than  to  offer  this  brief  statement  of  my  views  upon  a  question  so  vital  to  the 
welfare  of  our  common  country. ' ' 

Why  did  not  the  same  "profound  sense  of  duty"  to  the  people  of  California 
require  Mr.  Gwin  to  denounce  this  "absurd,  monstrous,  and  dangerous  theory" 
when  pronounced  and  enforced  by  General  Cass,  in  support  of  the  Compro 
mise  Measures  of  1850,  and  thence  repeated  by  that  eminent  statesman  at 
each  session  of  Congress  until  1857,  when  Mr.  Gwin  voted  for  his  confirma 
tion  as  Secretary  of  State  ?  Why  did  not  Mr.  Gwin  obey  the  same  sense  of 
duty  by  denouncing  James  Buchanan  as  the  Democratic  candidate  for  the 
Presidency,  when  he  declared  in  1856  that  "the  people  of  a  Territory,  like 
those  of  a  State,  shall  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall 
not  exist  within  their  limits?"  Why  did  he  not  perform  this  imperative 
duty  by  voting  against  Mr.  Cobb,  who  made  Northern  votes  for  Mr.  Buchanan 
by  advocating  this  same  "absurd,  monstrous,  and  dangerous  theory  of  'non- 
action  '  and  '  unfriendly  legislation ' "  when  he  was  appointed  Secretary  of 


the  Treasury  ?  And,  in  short,  why  did  he  not  prove  his  fidelity  to  a  high 
sense  of  duty  by  protesting  against  my  selection  as  Chairman  of  the  Senate's 
Committee  on  Territories  in  the  Democratic  caucus  by  a  unanimous  vote,  at 
every  session  that  he  has  been  a  Senator,  from  1850  to  1858,  with  a  full 
knowledge  of  my  opinions?  The  inference  is,  that  Mr.  G-win,  from  his  remarks 
on  the  "Dred  Scott  Decision,"  is  prepared  to  offer  it  as  an  excuse  for  the 
disregard  for  so  many  years  of  that  profound  sense  of  duty  which  he  owed 
to  the  people  of  California.  It  may  be  that  before  the  decision  his  mind  was 
not  clear  as  to  the  sense  of  duty  which  now  moves  him.  Of  that  decision 
he  said  : 

"In  March,  1857,  the  Supreme  Court  decided  this  question,  in  aU  its  various  relations, 
in  the  case  of  Dred  Scott.  That  decision  declares  that  neither  Congress  nor  a  Territorial 
Legislature  possess  the  power  either  to  establish  or  exclude  slavery  from  the  Territory,  and 
that  it  was  a  power  which  exclusively,  belonged  to  the  States;  that  the  people  of  a  Terri 
tory  can  exercise  this  power  for  the  first  time  when  they  form  a  Constitution;  that  the 
right  of  the  people  of  any  State  to  carry  their  slaves  into  a  common  Territory  of  the  United 
States,  and  hold  them  there  during  its  existence  as  such,  was  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States;  that  it  was  a  right  which  could  neither  be  subverted  nor  evaded, 
either  by  non-action,  by  direct  or  indirect  Congressional  legislation,  or  by  any  law  passed 
by  a  Territorial  Legislature." 

Surely  Mr.  Gwin  had  never  read  the  opinion  of  the  Court  in  the  case  of 

"  Dred  Scott,"  except  as  it  has  been  perverted  for  partisan  purposes   by 

newspapers,  when  he  undertook  to  expound  it  to  the  good  people  of  California. 

It  so  happens  that  the  Court  did  not  decide  any  one  of  the  propositions  so 

boldly  and  emphatically  stated  in  the  "  Grass  Valley"  speech! 

The  Court  did  not  declare  that  "  neither  Congress  nor  a  Territorial  Legis 
lature  possessed  the  power  either  to  establish  or  exclude  slavery  from  a  Ter 
ritory,  and  that  it  was  a  power  which  exclusively  belonged  to  the  States." 

The  Court  did  not  declare  "  that  the  people  of  a  Territory  can  exercise 
this  power  for  the  first  time  when  they  come  to  form  a  Constitution." 

The  Court  did  not  declare  "  that  the  right  of  the  people  of  any  State  to 
carry  their  slaves  into  a  common  Territory  of  the  United  States,  and  hold 
them  there  during  its  existence  as  such,  was  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States. " 

The  Court  did  NOT  declare  "that  it  was  a  right  which  could  neither  be  sub 
verted  nor  evaded,  either  by  non-action,  by  direct  or  indirect  Congressional 
legislation,  or  by  any  law  passed  by  a  Territorial  Legislature." 

Neither  the  decision  nor  the  opinion  of  the  Court  affirms  any  one  of  these 
propositions,  either  in  express  terms  or  by  fair  legal  intrenchment. 

This  version  of  the  "Dred  Scot  Decision"  had  its  origin  in  the  unfortunate 
Lecompton  controversy,  and  is  one  of  the  many  political  heresies  to  which 
it  gave  birth. 

There  are  other  portions  of  Mr.  G win's  speech  which  are  equally  open  to 
just  criticism,  and  unwarranted  by  the  facts  to  which  they  relate;  but  I 
refrain  from  commenting  upon  them,  as  I  prefer  to  confine  myself  to  those 
points  upon  which  my  political  action,  in  common  with  that  of  a  large  ma 
jority  of  the  Democratic  party,  has  been  unjustly  assailed  before  the  people 
of  California. 

In  faithful  compliance  with  the  pledges,  creed,  and  platform  of  the  Demo 
cratic  party,  I  stand  now  as  I  did  in  1850,  in  1854,  and  in  1856,  by  the  great 
cardinal  principle  that,  under  our  political  system,  every  distinct  political 
community  loyal  to  the  Constitution  and  the  Union  is  entitled  to  all  the 
rights,  privileges,  and  immunities  of  self-government,  in  respect  to  their 
internal  polity  and  domestic  institutions,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States. 

Kespectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

S.  A.  DOUGLAS. 
WASHINGTON,  August  16,  1859. 


